Club ideology

[ROK Lobster]

Would it be fair to say that the base ideology of the Swans during the Roos/Kirk era is that:

Exceptional courage and commitment can overcome deficiencies in skill and football ability (whether real or perceived) but demonstrated skill and football ability cannot overcome deficiencies in courage and commitment (whether real or perceived).

[Big Al]

Would it be fair to say that the base ideology of the Swans during the Roos/Kirk era is that:

Exceptional courage and commitment can overcome deficiencies in skill and football ability (whether real or perceived) but demonstrated skill and football ability cannot overcome deficiencies in courage and commitment (whether real or perceived).

I think the fact that we won a premiership and was close to another with a list that was not the most talented in the comp supports your theory.

[dimelb]

I think that's pretty fair. Steve Johnson is another example.

[liz]

Not sure you can that simply.

I think it is pretty evident that if you have a team that isn't the most blessed skillwise you're going to get smacked if you don't compensate to some degree by hardwork, tenacity and courage in the contest - something a premiership and constant finals appearances indicates the Swans have achieved.

A chunk of the existing squad was inherited by Roos, though admittedly the numbers still playing are dwindling. If you look at who has been recruited since Roos took over:

McVeigh - probable that they were more attracted by his skill as an U18 level player than his hardness

Malceski - see McVeigh

Jolly, Bolton, Richards -we needed height (and they are at least averagely skilled compared to others playing the same positions, even if Ted does let rip with the occasional absolute doozey clanger)

Mattner - pace and probably his hardness / tackling

Shaw - pace, something the squad desparately needed. Didn't come with a reputation for being a toughnut, and apart from a couple of heart-wrenching clangers last night, his skill level has been better than most of us probably expected

Vez, Meredith - the club expressly said they picked these two because of their kicking ability

Moore, Bird - both U18 ball winning magnets and however skilled a team you have, you still need to recruit players who can win the ball in tight. Plus they both have basic skill levels better than those of the likes of Kirk and Jude B - they just have to get more consistent at using them.

Jack, Barlow - one a tough nut who can do the sublime but isn't yet consistent enough skillwise. One primarily an athlete and with fundamentally decent skills. Just needs to learn to use them at senior level. Has to be added that coming off the rookie list, you're highly unlikely to get sublimely skilled players unless they have major deficiencies elsewhere in their game.

Bit hard to tell with most of the other recruits into the club as few have played any football. But the comments about Gilchrist and Campbell when they were recruited focussed on skills and decision making, not toughness. Hannebury looks to have good skills, based on early sightings, while Johnston was recruited for height.

Are players being selected for senior games based on toughness rather than skill? Hard to argue that really, if you look at who is running around against Ainslee this afternoon. Malceski and Barlow do have the potential to be more highly skilled than some who played seniors yesterday but neither has shown it so far this year at senior level. Smith might have been in yesterday's team had he not been injured early last week. DOK is still getting his body right (but looks to offer more in the skill department than the hard nut department), Gilchrist is physically not ready, Hannebury is unavailable.

I reckon the recruitment over recent years has shown there is a need to upskill the team. But it can't happen overnight, and you're not going to be able to wholesale recruit (whether by draft or trade) sublimely skilled players with second, third, fourth and rookie draft picks.

[dimelb]

Liz, I think you're right about what's behind recruitment picks; specific needs on a shopping list is what drives them.
Game selection is less clear cut. In some cases it's about finding out what they can do (obvious for new players). In others it's about finding out what they can do at this standard of play (the new boys coming from seconds into firsts, and perhaps people like Craig Bolton and Ted Richards). For others again it's about giving them the chance to demonstrate consistency (Barlow comes to mind - we've seen what he can do, we'd like him to do it more often). For still others it's about being prepared to make the team's success the highest priority, which is a, perhaps the, key measure of commitment. On this score I think Lobster's statement is valid, and is why I picked out Steve Johnson as an instance. He must be one of the most sheerly gifted men ever to play the game, but he became an even better player after some team mates put the hard word on him to improve. The result is sensational to watch and impossible to curb, as we know very well.

[Xie Shan]

Exceptional courage and commitment can overcome deficiencies in skill and football ability (whether real or perceived) but demonstrated skill and football ability cannot overcome deficiencies in courage and commitment (whether real or perceived).

Yep, sounds pretty fair to me. I certainly wouldn't argue with the above. While hard work can go a long way, not just in football, but in life as well, it's debatable whether courage and commitment can ever truly make up for deficiencies in skill and ability, but the second part of the statement is spot on. As far as footy goes it's a complementary thing as others above have said (see S Johnson).

As far as the validity of the club's ideology goes, I guess it's evolved as a consequence of the fact that as Liz said, you can't wholesale recruit enough highly skilled players with second, third and rookie draft picks, so in that sense we needed something else to give us an edge over other clubs. We're starting to recruit better now, it will probably get a bit harder to maintain our edge as our highly talented players like Goodes and O'Keefe get older, but I think that having those values in place will help the development of our youngsters as they come through so we (hopefully) won't end up another Melbourne while we rebuild.

[ShockOfHair]

Sure, the premise is true in any endeavour. If you've got skills but not the intensity to apply them the skills don't count for much.

I find it hard to separate out the defensive game style from the risk-averse selection and team development policy. It all seems of a piece.

I read somewhere that Roos evolved the gameplan around the players' abilities.

People have pointed out the contrast between the Swans' team style and the coach's own playing style. I wonder if Roos' decade and a half holding up the back six for mostly losing sides doesn't also account for the defence-first ethos.

[cos789]

Commitment can overcome skill .
But you can't beat a committed and skilled team .
There are many examples of teams that punched above their weight only to bow out in the finals when their opponents lifted .
Melbourne of old and North come to mind .
Maybe we should include some abilities in the traditional skills list ,
say fitness , accountability and commitment .

.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Divide this into two eras.

Barham went for 'likely types' or 'goers' - think Ablett, Schmidt, Moore, etc in the midfield.

Maxfield, a tremendously skilled player, now goes for disposal skills - think Meredith, Vez, etc

[connolly]

I wonder if Roos' decade and a half holding up the back six for mostly losing sides doesn't also account for the defence-first ethos.

He started out as a full forward. He played off the backline as an offensive defender. One thing about the Fitzroy sides they always attacked out of the backline. They had the greatest coach of all time Len Smith who had developed a fast attacking out of defense game plan decades before it became fashionable. They just didnt have the dough to rise to a premiership.
This clip is interesting as Peter Caven is playing, Ross Lyon plays like Jude B (and is pushed in the back by the maggots and no free), Roosey throws himself up forward from centre half back and kills off the evil empire. The Macster is in vintage form "the irony" "Fitzroy win at classic at Princes Park". Roosey is all passion and mullet. The Bloods style under Roos of attacking off the half back line was the Fitzroy style.

YouTube - Fitzroy v Collingwood 1992 - Paul Roos to the rescue!

I've included this clip (sorry mods a bit off topic) because it features the great Dino Martin, (2.38) and some wonderful passages of play. The AFL in an act of sheer bastardry made them play their last game in WA. I think the killing of Fitzroy and the solidarity of the players during that decade long process had a big effect on the development of the players culture under Roos and Lyon at Sydney. A truely great club. Big mullets and big hearts

YouTube - Fremantle v Fitzroy 1996 - Fitzroy's Demise & Auld Lang Syne